LIABILITIES OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

Administrative
- Civil
- Criminal

General Rule: A judge is not liable administratively, civilly, or criminally when he

acts within his legal powers and jurisdiction.
-

Reason: To free the judge from apprehension of personal consequences to himself

and to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Exception: Where an error is gross, deliberate and malicious, or is incurred with

evident bad faith, or when there is fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
-

In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, acts of a judge in his judicial

capacity is not subject to disciplinary actions even though such acts are erroneous,
so long as he acts in good faith. In such case, the remedy of aggrieved party is not
to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to a
higher court for review and correction.

Exception to the exception: When the law or procedure is so elementary, such as the
provisions of the Rules of Court, not to know, or to act as if one does not know the
same, constitutes gross ignorance of the law, even without the complainant having to
prove malice or bad faith.

Administrative Charges and Sanctions

They are classified as:
-

Serious;
Less Serious; and
Light Charges (Sec. 7 Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Serious Charges

-

Bribery, direct or indirect;

Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft Corrupt Practices Law (RA No.
3019);
Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent
court in an appropriate proceeding;
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

Willful failure to pay a just debt;

Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before
the court;
Immorality;
Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
Partisan political activities; and
Alcoholism and/or vicious habits. (Sec. 8, Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Sanctions for Serious Charges

-

Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits; or
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3)
but not exceeding six (6); or
A fine of more than PHP 20,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 40,000.00 (Sec. 11,
Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Less Serious Charges

-

Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a

case;
Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
Unauthorized practice of law;
Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by
law;
Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
Simple misconduct. (Sec.9, Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Sanctions for Less Serious Charges

-

Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1)
nor more than three (3) months; or
A fine of more than PHP10,000.00 but not exceeding PHP20,000.00 (Sec. 11 (B),
Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Light Charges

Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;

Gambling in public;
Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and
Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports. (Sec. 10, Rule 140 ROC)

Administrative Sanctions for Light Charges

-

A fine of not less than PHP1,000.00 but not exceeding PHP10,000.00 and/or
Censure;
Reprimand;
Admonition with warning. (Section 11 (C), Rule 140, ROC)

Grounds for Administrative Sanctions against Judges

-

Misconduct any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the

administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination of the case.
Serious Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of
judgment. For it to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial
acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or
were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.
Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance and carelessness. A
judge would be inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance
of his duties that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires
in the rendition of any public service.

Three (3) Ways of Instituting Administrative Charges Against Judges

1.) Motu proprio by the Supreme Court; or
2.) Upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge
of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations; or
3.) Upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable
integrity. (Sec. 1, Rule 140, ROC)

Administrative Procedure on Complaints against Justices and Judges (Rule

140, ROC)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Institution of Complaint (Sec. 1)

Action on the Complaint (Sec. 2)
Designation of Investigator (Sec. 3)
Hearing (Sec. 4)
Report (Sec. 5)
Action by the SC (Sec. 6)

Note: Confidentiality of Proceedings (Sec. 12) until final thereof to protect the
reputation of judges/justices, for it is possible the charge or charges may be
unfounded and malicious.

Retirement, Resignation, or Promotion of a Judge does not necessarily render moot

and academic the case against him.
Desistance on the part of the Complainant does not warrant dismissal of administrative
complaint
Death of respondent judge will not necessarily render the administrative case moot and
academic

Administrative Cases against Justices, Judges May be Automatically Treated as

Disbarment Cases
-

Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC (Sep. 17, 2002), serious administrative cases against
justices and judges are automatically converted as disciplinary proceedings
against them both as such officials and as members of the Philippine Bar.
Please see case: Samson v. Caballero, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, Aug. 5, 2009

Administrative Complain, When not an Appropriate Remedy

-

The filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not an appropriate

remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In the absence of fraud, malice
or dishonesty in rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the
aggrieved party is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for
review and correction.
An inquiry into a judges civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may be
made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with
finality.

Justices and Judges are also protected from baseless and unfounded
administrative complaints
-

The SC promulgated A.M. No 03-10-01-SC Resolution Prescribing Measures

to Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded Administrative
Complaints.
Complainants may be required to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to
show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the
Bar and as an officer of the court.

Civil Liabilities under the Civil Code

1.) Article 27 refusal or neglect without just cause by a public servant to
perform his official duty.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may
file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to
any disciplinary or administrative action that may be taken.
2.) Article 32 directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating or in any
manner impeding or impairing civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly
or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any
of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages
xxx
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act
or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Disabilities of Judges under the Civil Code

1.) Article 1491 (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of court of
superior and inferior courts and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
action, either in person or through the mediation of another the property and rights
in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction
or territory they exercise the irrespective functions.
2.) Article 739 donations made to a judge, his wife, descendants and ascendants by
reason of his office are void.

Criminal Liabilities Under the RPC

1.) Article 204 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment.
The elements of the crime are a.) that the offender is a judge; b.) that he renders
a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; c.) that the judgment is unjust;
d.) that the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
2.) Article 205 Judgment rendered through negligence.
The elements of the crime are a.) that the offender is a judge; b.) that he renders
a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; c.) that the judgment is
manifestly unjust; d.) that it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
3.) Article 206 Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order.
The elements of the crime are a.) that the offender is a judge; b.) that he
performs any of the following acts: i) knowingly renders unjust interlocutory
order or decree, or ii) renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree
through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

4.) Article 207 Malicious delay in the administration of justice.

The elements of the crime are a.) that the offender is a judge; b.) that there is a
proceeding in his court; c) that he delays in the administration of justice; d.) that
the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate
intent to inflict damage on either party in the case.

Malfeasance under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Section 3 (e), RA 3019 A judge is criminally liable for causing undue injury to a person
or giving any private party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official function through manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross
inexcusable negligence.

Resolution of Administrative Cases against Judges and Justices

1) If the penalty imposed upon a judge is more than 1 year suspension or a fine of
more than PHP10,000.00 or both, the administrative case shall be decided by the
SC en banc.
2) If the penalty does not exceed the period and fine above-mentioned, the case will
be decided by the Division where it is assigned.
3) If the decision is one of dismissal of the judge, that decision shall be en banc.
Note: Vote Required in the SC for the Removal of Judges.
Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the Constitution provides:
The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Power and Liabilities of Members of the Supreme Court

a.) The Supreme Court has administrative supervision
personnel thereof (Sec. 6, Art. VIII Constitution)

over all courts and the

b.) Justices of the SC can only be removed by impeachment (Sec. 2, Art XI,
Constitution) Impeachment proceedings against justices of the Supreme Court is
sui generis in nature and governed by the rules created by the impeachment court.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment (par. 8, Sec. 3, Art XI,
Constitution)